1. Defendants B, C, Defendant (Appointed Party) D, Selected E, and F shall each share of 1/5 of the total area of 390 square meters in Gangseo-si G in Gangseo-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 9, 1954, the registration of the establishment of the 390 square meters wide (hereinafter “instant land”) in Gangnam-si G and the registration of the establishment of the Chuncheon district court and the registration of the establishment of the ownership was completed in the name of the Defendants H on the denied network of the Defendants.

B. On November 10, 1994, the Plaintiff’s Cho Jong-ri began to purchase and cultivate J-ri land including the instant land. Since the said I died on November 10, 1994, and the Plaintiff’s denying K cultivated the instant land. Since the said K died on May 28, 2005, the Plaintiff occupied and managed the instant land up to the day.

C. The network H died on January 14, 2016, and the Defendant B, C, Defendant (Appointed Party) D, Appointed E, and F jointly inherited the network H at the rate of 1/5, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, 2, 3, 5 through 7, 9, witness L's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assistance team I, around 1960, occupied and managed the instant land by means of cultivating crops in the instant land after purchasing the instant land from Nonparty M., and after the said I died, K, South Korea, and after the death of the said K, the Plaintiff occupied and managed the instant land by cultivating crops or managing livestock pens.

On the other hand, the land cadastre of this case was registered to preserve the Plaintiff’s ownership in accordance with Law No. 1675 of Jan. 25, 1965. As I was occupying the land of this case at least since around the above time, the prescription period for the acquisition of possession was completed on Jan. 25, 1985 after the lapse of 20 years from that time.

B. The Defendant (Appointed Party)’s assertion D did not sell the instant land to the Plaintiff’s Chobu, and the Plaintiff did not occupy the instant land via the said I.

3. Determination

A. The possession of related legal principles and articles seems to be a factual control over any person in light of social norms.